Who will buy these homes?

Babs03

The housing market is in a slump where we are, nobody can sell or even get viewings.
Everyone rushed to buy before stamp duty went up and now is terribly slow. The government have wrecked the housing market. Sellers are having to drop to the price they bought their house for years ago and some even lower than that in order to sell.
In the Guardian it said things haven’t been this bad for 10 years.

My grandson and his partner are exactly in that situation. Would have to drop £25,000 beneath original purchase price plus penalty . Its ridiculous. The reasons above are exactly as quoted by Babs.

Our market town has doubled in size with no increase in services. Some children are travelling 10 miles to the next town for a school place, and still they are building.

Because we are relatively cheap they are being snapped up as buy to let

AuntieE

I suspect that what seems like affordable housing to our generation and what young couples buying find feasible are two very different things.

If all they can get are newly built houses that to us cost far too much, they will just have to try and get a mortgage they have little or now chance of ever paying off, or give up the idea of becoming house-owners.

If the houses don't sell, the builders will need to lower the prices and sell them at a loss.

One way or other I suspect these houses will sell, but probably not very quickly.

Many older people locally had been looking forward to the promised development for years, saying that they hoped that their grandchildren would be able to have social housing or buy properties in the area in which their families had lived for generations.
So far the properties that have been finished are out of their financial reach, the amount of social housing has been reduced and the rental properties have not materialised. Some of the flats get hardly any sun and are not an attractive buying proposition.
The developers respond to slow sales by dragging their feet on the next stages of the building programme - affordable housing and rental properties of one kind or another.

The roads are constantly being dug up locally as the new developments need extra power, extra water and sewerage. There is one stretch of a couple of hundred yards that took two years to replace as cycle lanes were laid, dug up for one set of pipes, relayed, dug again and so on. So now we have cyclists zooming along in the same space that we get off the bus into, we've lost our pedestrian island to cross the road, and two bus stops have been amalgamated into one, without the arrival times board that used to be on both bus shelters. This is not progress.

I suspect that what seems like affordable housing to our generation and what young couples buying find feasible are two very different things.

If all they can get are newly built houses that to us cost far too much, they will just have to try and get a mortgage they have little or now chance of ever paying off, or give up the idea of becoming house-owners.

If the houses don't sell, the builders will need to lower the prices and sell them at a loss.

One way or other I suspect these houses will sell, but probably not very quickly.

There are hundreds and hundreds of flats being built locally, some "affordable", some will be for rent and some social housing. However I think that they are still having trouble selling the first launch of the ones for normal sale, they're quite small, expensive and (important for many) they have no parking. The show flat has small beds, small sofas and so on to make it look larger.
Already the developers are chipping away at the affordable and rental flats, though they can't pull out of the social housing. Also a whole parade of shops was closed two years ago prior to demolishing them and the social housing above them. Business owners were told they could get premises in the bottom of the new developments but so far none of them have been rehoused. Also the buildings are still standing.

Allira

David49

The buyer pays the stamp duty but just like VAT it’s really a tax on sales because it’s taken into account on the overall cost of a property. If you’re downsizing to a smaller property stamp duty would be modest compared to that on your former home.

That is entirely dependent on area and property prices in that area, not size of property.
It's also dependent on type of property as a 3 bedroomed bungalow could cost the same as a 4/5 bedroomed house because of the scarcity value of the former.

Just the value of the property a one bed flat in London could be worth the same as 5 beds out in the sticks it all depends where you choose to live.

David49

The buyer pays the stamp duty but just like VAT it’s really a tax on sales because it’s taken into account on the overall cost of a property. If you’re downsizing to a smaller property stamp duty would be modest compared to that on your former home.

That is entirely dependent on area and property prices in that area, not size of property.
It's also dependent on type of property as a 3 bedroomed bungalow could cost the same as a 4/5 bedroomed house because of the scarcity value of the former.

growstuff

fancythat

Someone on this forum said even recently, what did it matter if China bought this that and the other.

It was probably me. Well, why does it matter? What it actually means is that China is investing in the UK ie pumping money into the UK economy.

British companies owned by foreign companies are managed and run to the advantage of the foreign owners, not the British economy. Decisions to open and close sites, employ/sack workers on a large scale are made in another country to their advantage.

This is of particular concern wwhere the investment is in key industries like public utilities. The dire problems of Thames Water are the result of it being almost entirely owned by foreign owners: private equity, sovereign wealth funds and foreign pension schemes. there are other utilities, especially in the water industry that are in a similar mess.

With high tech, were a foreign company/country with malice aforethought to invest in certaain forms of high tech - and suddenly pull the plug, ccompanies could be left with equipment they could not update or repair, more worryingly all kinds of surveillence devices could be integrated into the equipment to report on the information passing through the equipment and of course a 'kill button'.

Yes, foreign investment is welcome in this country and Britain invests extensively in other countries, but foreign investment in the UK whether by foreign companies or private investors or national investors must be supervised and approved to make sure that the UK will benefit from it and that our rightful security concerns are addressed.

fancythat

growstuff

fancythat

Someone on this forum said even recently, what did it matter if China bought this that and the other.

It was probably me. Well, why does it matter? What it actually means is that China is investing in the UK ie pumping money into the UK economy.

Chinese investors have acquired a wide range of UK assets, including significant stakes in infrastructure, major companies, and even football clubs. Examples include a 10% stake in Heathrow Airport and ownership of UK Power Networks. Furthermore, Chinese companies have invested in sectors like nuclear power (Hinkley Point C) and utilities (Northumbrian Water). There's also substantial investment in FTSE 100 companies, including Barclays, Severn Trent, and easyJet, as well as stakes in defense firms like BAE Systems.
D

None of the above matters?

It matters a great deal, but if we want better services “today” without increasing taxation, we give part of the UK to foreigners.
Short term gain, long term pain.

Developers in our village ripped out a 50 year old hawthorn hedgerow alongside a public footpath and replaced it with an ugly fence, despite not having permission to do it.

The enforcement officer stopped work on site for a couple of days (is that a punishment)? Work has resumed.

We have asked that mature hedgerow is replanted, but no doubt it will be spindly little mixed hedging and it will die.

PP was granted for 27 houses on a small green field despite Severn Trent advising the existing sewers were not adequate and the density of housing was too high.

growstuff

fancythat

Someone on this forum said even recently, what did it matter if China bought this that and the other.

It was probably me. Well, why does it matter? What it actually means is that China is investing in the UK ie pumping money into the UK economy.

Chinese investors have acquired a wide range of UK assets, including significant stakes in infrastructure, major companies, and even football clubs. Examples include a 10% stake in Heathrow Airport and ownership of UK Power Networks. Furthermore, Chinese companies have invested in sectors like nuclear power (Hinkley Point C) and utilities (Northumbrian Water). There's also substantial investment in FTSE 100 companies, including Barclays, Severn Trent, and easyJet, as well as stakes in defense firms like BAE Systems.
D

None of the above matters?

^This is the sort of muddled thinking/twisting of the truth that underpins so much of the propaganda of the past few years. The term 'Illegal' when talking about human beings, applies to those who have been refused the right to stay. They are deported, so have no need of accommodation, whoever is the landlord. Asylum seekers are here legally, and it is not their fault if the process by which their claims are accepted or rejected is painfully slow. Anyone who has arrived 'under the radar' is also here illegally, but will never be offered housing or benefits of any kind, as they will have to declare their illegal status in order to make any sort of claim.

People who arrived here by boat, arrived illegally.

that's market forces

The value just increased steadily from there on

And there you have it.

Yes, sadly, StripeyGran, but I think David49 explained the situation well.
Our first holiday home in Devon was bought off a young couple who were on a 50/50 housing scheme. They'd had it 2 or 3 years, but when it came to selling it, they marketed it vastly above what any local first time buyer could afford.
I must admit I was surprised by their attiude, but that's market forces. There were no takers locally, so they sold it as a 2nd home to outsiders. The value just increased steadily from there on. I don't know what the answer is.

Granmarderby10

By definition, all houses must be “affordable” to someone as opposed to unaffordable-in which case no one could buy them …..why not just call them cheap, and, if they really are cheap why aren’t councils/ housing associations snapping them up to house those who need them.

Thr link defines affordable housing, it isn't just houses that are affordable to someone.
Fact Sheet 9: What is affordable housing? - GOV.UK share.google/UnOS3swdZ144Ziute

Of course one size doesn't fit all. Sadly for many people, no size fits.

They don't have big properties to cash in, second homes and so on. They can't click their fingers and buy in help. They are getting by day by day.

My AC will never be able to buy until we die, but where are we supposed to live?

escaped

I used to think that the idea of home ownership was pretty unique and overrated in the UK - an English man and his castle - until I read that we are some way behind other countries like Italy, Spain, France, Romania etc and of course outside Europe too.
Yet, other countries aren't so hung up on the type of homeownership being a mark of financial success. I'm guessing owning a big or posh home is a sign of stability and good planning to most British people, but the constant climbing of the property ladder in our society has become all-consuming, and significantly detrimental to the way prices have increased.

That’s largely because of our taxation system where all gains on your home are tax free and inheritance tax has a very high threshold. It encourages putting most saving into your dwelling rather than pensions or other investments just because it’s not going to be taxed.

By definition, all houses must be “affordable” to someone as opposed to unaffordable-in which case no one could buy them …..why not just call them cheap, and, if they really are cheap why aren’t councils/ housing associations snapping them up to house those who need them.

If you’re downsizing to a smaller property stamp duty would be modest compared to that on your former home.
But downsizing isn't always down*costing*. When we downsized from 5 bedrooms, the price of the next property although with fewer bedrooms, was similar due to the chosen location. So no savings in terms of stamp duty

The buyer pays the stamp duty but just like VAT it’s really a tax on sales because it’s taken into account on the overall cost of a property. If you’re downsizing to a smaller property stamp duty would be modest compared to that on your former home.

I used to think that the idea of home ownership was pretty unique and overrated in the UK - an English man and his castle - until I read that we are some way behind other countries like Italy, Spain, France, Romania etc and of course outside Europe too.
Yet, other countries aren't so hung up on the type of homeownership being a mark of financial success. I'm guessing owning a big or posh home is a sign of stability and good planning to most British people, but the constant climbing of the property ladder in our society has become all-consuming, and significantly detrimental to the way prices have increased.

It would be good if there were more choice, and if stamp duty didn't get in the way of those who do want to downsize doing so and freeing up family-sized houses for families. In my area the majority of bungalows are on the peripheral estates, which means up a hill, as the town centre is in a valley. As the estates rarely have shops or medical provision, they are not attractive to people who are looking ahead to not driving and needing facilities in walking distance. There are lots of conveniently placed retirement flats, but there are many problems associated with them (high service charges continuing when they are for sale, small rooms and difficulties in selling them on), and not everyone wants to live surrounded by other older people.

I'm not suggesting that only the over 60s (or whatever) be exempt from stamp duty as working people carry too much of the burden of taxation as it is, but I do feel that something should be done to help houses to circulate more, and that a much more holistic view of the housing situation should be taken. That is not to stop anyone doing what they like with their own properties, or buying what suits them, but to offer genuine choice at all price points.

There are 11 million people over 65 in the UK and we are as diverse as the rest of the population. Quite a number are on low incomes and pension credit, but many also have comfortable retirement incomes and there are of course plenty of millionaaires over 65.

But some of us would have liked to downsize because a larger house and garden all becomes rather too much to cope with as we get older. There should be a middle way.

There seems to be no alternative in new building between the one or two bedrooms flats in retirement complexes or tiny bungalows and large 4 or possibly 5 bedrooms houses!

If someone has a small house then all they might want or need is perhaps a stair lift if the need arose.

Of course there is not one size fits all but there is a complete lack of reasonably sized single storey properties with a good layout and design on the market and certainly absolutely nothing of that type has been built for many years.
Perhaps it is just this area? I don't know but certainly it's very short-sighted.

Of course, builders do like to cram as many homes as possible into the space available and bungalows are presumably not cost-effective.